Kant's Theory on Ethics and Morality
Morality has been a question studied by philosophers for thousands of years and for a number of reasons. In many cases, it is considered the foundation of the most profound religions in the world and the premise upon which laws of great societies are based. From Plato to Ayn Rand, the question of what is right and wrong and how we determine it has puzzled great thinkers. For example, Aristotle discussed morality in the light of knowledge, reason and emotion. Conversely, Kant argued that morality was independent of our feelings: an a priori imperative that we had a duty to follow. The divergent views of these two renowned philosophers illustrate two distinct ways the argument of morality has developed. The differences start with their basic definition of morality and the arguments continue to deviate as they discuss the impact of human nature on morality. It is at that point where their principle precepts of morality are tested with human action that Kant's theory falls apart and Aristotle's is shown as increasingly valid. Because of this, it becomes clear that Kant's theory of morality is inherently flawed while Aristotle's theory encompasses the subjective and emotional elements associated with morality and thus is the b
Consider civilizations in general: billions of people have lived their lives, created art and devastation, reproduced and killed. Whether the decisions to do so were made rationally or irrationally, or the consequences of the acts were good or bad, the decisions were made and the acts happened. Unless we begin to question reality or the validity of our perceptions, it would be difficult to argue with any of that. The arguments begin with the judgment of the act or the consequence. Take the statement: those men should not have flown their planes into the World Trade Center. Is it a judgment of the validity of the decision the men made to crash the planes? Or is it the result of a consideration of the consequences of the act of invasion? The concept of morality attempts to answer those questions. The other important point of Aristotle's argument is that he acknowledges the quest to become a moral person as a process. First, we must be trained in what are considered moral ways to act. Then we must practice acting in those ways so that we develop the habit of acting morally. Then finally, and perhaps most important to rational beings, he recognizes the fact that our actions are inextricable linked to our feelings of pleasure and pain by saying the moral person enjoys performing moral acts. Yet, there is a point in Aristotle's moral training that recognizes the possibility of not needing to want to do the right thing. It could be argued that it is on this point that the two theories could be reconciled. After all, both men argue for doing what is right. Aristotle allows that in the learning process there is a stage where we must practice doing the right thing. This could be interpreted as a bit Kantian because at that point in the training the person on their way to becoming a moral person may not necessarily enjoy what they are doing, rather they are doing what they ought to do. Their actions may be merely a recital of what they are being taught. And, that is true. However, the critical point of taking that next step to align your moral actions with the desire to perform them is the quintessential representation of what it means to be a rational human being: to want pleasure and avoid pain. Thus, morality again is inextricably linked to humans as rational beings. Morality is a totally human concept, subject to emotion and societal norms. Thus our feelings about our actions are completely relevant to the discussion of morality. Both Kant and Aristotle would agree we are r
Some common words found in the essay are:
Pure Reason, Conversely Kant, Trade Center, Kant Aristotle, , Ayn Rand, human concept, priori knowledge, moral person, aristotle's theory, independent feelings, kant's theory, kant's theory morality, aristotle's theory encompasses, theory morality inherently, flawed aristotle's, theory encompasses, duty follow, morality inherently, flawed aristotle's theory, inherently flawed aristotle's,
Approximate Word count = 1700
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
